The Senate has passed Constitutional Carry 21-14. It would still have to pass the house, but needless to say, this is a significant win for us. Maine would be the first New England state to pass Constitutional Carry (Vermont has always had it). That would put significant pressure on New Hampshire to get with the program! Let us hope that the House acts similarly.
We really need a large state, like Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, or Ohio to bite. Pennsylvania will be an uphill battle. The Philadelphia contingent will object loudly, and we’d probably lose a number of suburban Republicans. At some point, I believe we will get it, but it’ll probably take a state like Florida or Texas making the leap first. Politicians are herd animals, for the most part. The trick is getting the herd moving in the right direction. That gets easier as more of the herd starts moving.
10 thoughts on “Civil Rights Victory in Maine”
I want more reciprocity, both in general and with CC states.
Oregon – where I live – doesn’t recognize any out of state permits.
Which means if I got off my ass and got an Oregon CCL it’d be useless if I went to Washington – the other state I most often visit – so in practice I’d probably just get a Utah non-resident as the best compromise in addition.
Having to have two permits just to drive five miles into Vancouver is the kind of thing that makes me not bother with carrying.
Yeah, Oregon is kind of a pain that way. There’s a bill in the legislature to force expanding reciprocity, but since we came out of 2014 even bluer than we went in it’s not likely to go anywhere.
But that’s one of the reasons we’ve been dragging our feet with getting our CHLs, too. We spend just enough time out-of-state to make it almost not worth bothering, since we’d have to get a whole ‘nother permit to cross state lines. And while our “preferred” instructors (guys we know well and like to support) offer dual-permit classes, they do Arizona permits instead of Utah, and Arizona’s permit isn’t valid in Washington (apparently Utah’s instructor certification process requires the instructor to be certified physically in Utah).
Then again, Washington is an open-carry state with strong pre-emption of local gun laws….
I don’t understand your reluctance (or Sigvald’s.) An OR permit is shall-issue for residents, and then you have it. A WA permit is easy to get for non-residents (and is shall-issue to boot) and in some jurisdictions issuance is very fast.
Was in Seattle last fall for a concert. Walked to the Courthouse and applied for my WA permit. In and out in under an hour and it showed up in the mail a few weeks later. Easier and cheaper than getting my AK permit.
Unless things have changed in recent years, something that will contribute to constitutional carry being an uphill battle in PA is that some of our activists who give lip-service to supporting it, actually oppose it, and they are people who have had the ears of “the best pro-gun legislators in PA” for years now.
I cannot prove that as my evidence is based on private conversations with those people in the past, at which time I encountered statements like “Vermont Carry would never work in Pennsylvania, because we have too many [n-words] and spics and drug dealers. . .”
You may have observed that some of our top “pro-gun” people in the past have dedicated far more energy (like, all of it) to achieving license reciprocity with other states, and none to eliminating the need for licenses. That includes “the best pro-gun legislator in the state,” who some years ago introduced a cockamamie bill to take administration of carry permits away from the counties, centralize it with the state, and give access to the centralized system to police across the country, the better to facilitate and encourage reciprocity. That seemed real pro-gun to me.
You may choose not to believe me, and that’s fine, because things change with time. I hope they have. But save a brain cell or two for reserving suspicion, in case you see anything going on that appears to fit that mold. A lot of our “pro-gun” pols only use the gun issue as a decoy to attract material support for their other agendas.
Having lived in Texas my entire life and watching the current orchestrations in the attempt to simply get licensed OC and campus carry approved (it’s coming down to the wire on Sunday and neither are a done deal yet), I’m skeptical that we’ll see Constitutional carry pass through the legislative process anytime in the next ten years. Our legislature only meets 120 days every two years in regular session, so it takes great political will to get things done on controversial issues. As much as I’d like it, I don’t think the political will is there. It’s also relatively easy for a bill to get bottled up somewhere along the way. The vast majority of them die.
I agree with River Runner. Tejas isn’t as gun-friendly as they want you to think.
I’ll let Rep. Trey Martinez (D-San Antonio) convey my thoughts on the matter: â€œLook, there is always going to be a fight, but there are 98 Republicans. If they wanted to pass a bill to make Christmas in April, they could.â€
“Texas isnâ€™t as gun-friendly as they want you to think.”
Forgive my eccentricity in harping on this, but that fits the theory I expounded above: Nationwide, a lot more “conservative” legislators use gun rights as a decoy to woo votes and money, than actually care about the issue. We gun owners are there to keep them in power to advance their real agendas. So, if you have a state known for “conservative” legislators, a lot of pro-gun noise will be coming out of it, but not necessarily a lot of pro-gun action.
I’d not call this a “victory” just yet. It hasn’t been passed at this point.
Comments are closed.